LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Whitfield, Stephen (2014)
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: SB191.M2, QC0981.8.C5
This research addresses the following question: ‘In the context of climate change, how do different actors narrate the uncertain, ambiguous and risky future of maize agriculture, and what are the implications?’ A multi-sited and institutional ethnography approach was adopted in order to look critically at how knowledge and narratives of future change in Kenyan maize agriculture are constructed by a variety of actors. The thesis describes: contested narratives of climate change and climate change impacts (through an analysis of the global climate impact modelling endeavour); contested narratives of change on smallholder farms (based on two case study sites in Kenya); contested narratives of pro-poor technological interventions (including the development of genetically modified drought tolerant maize); and contested narratives of technology regulation (with a focus on Kenyan biosafety policy). It is shown that narratives are contested in multiple sites and by a variety of actors and, although the resolution of these contestations often fall along familiar lines of power and elite capture, there are examples in which alternative perspectives find agency. This is the case not only in national policy-making arenas and the board-rooms of international development initiatives, but also in the fields and communities of smallholder farmers, the offices of national research centres, and the operations of civil society organisations. It is argued that, within these diverse settings, critical analysis of the constructed nature of knowledge is a necessary foundation on which to open up the negotiation of Kenya’s agricultural future to multiple alternatives.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Chapter Two: Background: Climate Change, International Agricultural Research and GMOs... 19 Climate Change and Maize Agriculture in Kenya ....................................................................... 19 Climate Change in Kenya........................................................................................................ 21 Drought and Vulnerability...................................................................................................... 25 Agricultural Policy and Climate Change Adaptation .............................................................. 27 New Philanthropy and International Agricultural Research ...................................................... 28 The DTMA and WEMA Initiatives........................................................................................... 33 Genetically Modified Crops: Risk and Regulation ...................................................................... 36 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 42
    • Uncertain Future.................................................................................................................. 43 The Nature of Knowledge and Risk............................................................................................ 44 Understanding Incomplete Knowledge ..................................................................................... 51 Whose (Incomplete) Knowledge Counts?.................................................................................. 55 Politics, Power, and Learning ..................................................................................................... 56 Social Relationships and Risk ..................................................................................................... 59 Risk Governance and the Role of Knowledge Brokers............................................................... 61 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 67
    • Chapter Four: Methodology: A Multi-Sited and Institutional Ethnographic Approach............. 69 Methodological Approach.......................................................................................................... 69 Literature and Secondary Data Review and Actor Mapping...................................................... 73 Research Sites ............................................................................................................................ 78 Details of Data Collection........................................................................................................... 81 Participatory Scenarios and Stakeholder Workshops................................................................ 83 Iteration and Cycles of Learning ................................................................................................ 86 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 87
    • Chapter Five: Climate-Crop Modelling: Complexity Logic and the Negotiation of Evidence ..... 88 The Context of Climate-Crop Projections .................................................................................. 88 Producing Climate-Crop Projections.......................................................................................... 93 Identifying Model Uncertainty............................................................................................... 97 Ignorance about Complex Agro-Climatic Systems ................................................................. 99 Methodological Choices and Ambiguous Decisions ............................................................ 105 Communicating Incomplete Climate-Crop Projections ........................................................... 111 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 115
    • Chapter Six: Smallholder Farming: Experiencing Risk and Internalising Knowledge .............. 116 Contextualising Smallholder Farming ...................................................................................... 116 Pathways of Change and the Nature of Knowledge in Smallholder Farming .......................... 119
    • Uncertain Future................................................................................................................ 141 The Institutional Context of WEMA and DTMA ....................................................................... 141 The DTMA/WEMA Narrative.................................................................................................... 145 The Science and Incomplete Knowledge of DTMA and WEMA............................................... 147 Uncertainty in Crop Trialling ................................................................................................ 148 Ignorance about Socio-Economic Impacts........................................................................... 154 Ambiguity and Values in Crop Breeding .............................................................................. 157 Advancing the Narrative: Farmers, Consumers and Regulators.............................................. 160 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 163
    • Chapter Eight: Biosafety Regulation: Contested Narratives and the Kenyan 'GM Debate'..... 166 The Context of Regulatory Debate and Policy Making ............................................................ 166 The History of Biosafety Regulation......................................................................................... 168 Negotiating Incomplete Knowledge in Biosafety Policy .......................................................... 173 Uncertain Evidence Bases and GMO Health Risks ............................................................... 173 Paternalistic Regulation in Response to Public Ignorance................................................... 175 Value Bases and the Ambiguous Nature of Regulation ....................................................... 177 Participation in Regulatory Policy Making ............................................................................... 181 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 185
    • OWENS, S. 2000. 'Engaging the public': information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A, 32, 1141-1148.
    • PAARLBERG, R. L. 2008. Starved for Science. How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa, London, Harvard University Press.
    • PALMER, W. C. 1965. Meteorological drought. Research Paper. US Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau.
    • PARRY, M. 2004. Global impacts of climate change under the SRES scenarios. Global environmental change, 14, 1-1.
    • PARRY, M. L., ROSENZWEIG, C., IGLESIAS, A., LIVERMORE, M. & FISCHER, G. 2004. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socioeconomic scenarios. Global environmental change, 14, 53-67.
    • PATEL, M., KOK, K. & ROTHMAN, D. S. 2007. Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy, 24, 546-561.
    • PATT, A., SUAREZ, P. & GWATA, C. 2005. Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 12623- 12628.
    • PAWSON, R. 2002. Evidence-based policy: the promise of `realist synthesis'. Evaluation, 8, 340-358.
    • PELLIZZONI, L. 2001. The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. The British Journal of Sociology, 52, 59-86.
    • PELLIZZONI, L. 2010. Risk and responsibility in a manufactured world. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 463-478.
    • PETERSON, G., CUNNINGHAM, S., DEUTSCH, L., ERICKSON, J., QUINLAN, A., RAEZ-LUNA, E., TINCH, R., TROELL, M., WOODBURY, P. & ZENS, S. 2000. The risks and benefits of genetically modified crops: a multidisciplinary perspective. Conservation Ecology, 4, 13.
    • PETERSON, G. D., CUMMING, G. S. & CARPENTER, S. R. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17, 358-366.
    • PETTS, J., HORLICK-JONES, T., MURDOCK, G., HARGREAVES, D., MCLACHLAN, S. & LOFSTEDT, R. Social Amplification of Risk: the Media and the Public. HSE Research Project, 2001 University of Birmingham.
    • PFEIFFER, M. & DULLO, W.-C. 2006. Monsoon-induced cooling of the western equatorial Indian Ocean as recorded in coral oxygen isotope records from the Seychelles covering the period of 1840-1994AD. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25, 993-1009.
    • PIDGEON, N., KASPERSON, R. E. & SLOVIC, P. (eds.) 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • PIELKE JR, R. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    • POORTINGA, W. & PIDGEON, N. F. 2005. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25, 199-209.
    • PRAKASH, A. & KOLLMAN, K. L. 2003. Biopolitics in the EU and the U.S.: A Race to the Bottom or Convergence to the Top? International Studies Quarterly, 47, 617-641.
    • PRELL, C., HUBACEK, K., REED, M., QUINN, C., JIN, N., HOLDEN, J., BURT, T., KIRBY, M. & SENDZIMIR, J. 2007. If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 263- 282.
    • PRETTY, J. 2001. The rapid emergence of genetic modification in world agriculture: contested risks and benefits. Environmental Conservation, 28, 248-262.
    • PRETTY, J. N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23, 1247-1263.
    • PRIEST, S. H. 2001. A Grain of Truth, Lanham, Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
    • PRIEST, S. H., BONFADELLI, H. & RUSANEN, M. 2003. The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23, 751-766.
    • RADAELLI, C. M. 1995. The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 2, 159-183.
    • RANDALL, D. A., WOOD, R. A., BONY, S., COLMAN, R., FICHEFET, T., FYFE, J., KATTSOV, V., PITMAN, A., SHUKLA, J. & SRINIVASAN, J. 2007. Cilmate Models and Their Evaluation. . In: SOLOMON, S., D. QIN, M. MANNING, Z. CHEN, M. MARQUIS, K.B. AVERYT, M.TIGNOR & MILLER, H. L. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • RANKIN, J. 2001. Texts in action: How nurses are doing the fiscal work of health care reform. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 7, 251-267.
    • RENN, O. 1999. A model for an analytical-deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science & Technology, 33, 3049-3055.
    • RENN, O., BURNS, W. J., KASPERSON, J. X., KASPERSON, R. E. & SLOVIC, P. 1992. The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 137-160.
    • RENN, O. & LEVINE, D. 1991. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: KASPERSON, R., E. (ed.) Communicating Risks to the Public: Technology, Risk and Society. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    • RENN, O. & SCHWEIZER, P.-J. 2009. Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 174- 185.
    • RIVINGTON, M. & KOO, J. 2010. Report on the Meta-‐Analysis of Crop Modelling for Climate Change and Food Security Survey. CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Challenge Program.
    • ROBBEN, A. C. & SLUKA, J. A. 2012. Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader, London, Wiley.
    • ROBBINS, P. 2011. Political ecology: A critical introduction, London, Wiley.
    • ROBERTS, H. 2005. What works? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24, 34-54.
    • ROBINSON, J., CLOUSTON, B., SUH, J. & CHALOUPKA, M. 2008. Are citizens' juries a useful tool for assessing environmental value? Environmental Conservation, 35, 351-360.
    • ROBINSON, L. & BERKES, F. 2010. Applying Resilience Thinking to Questions of Policy for Pastoralist Systems: Lessons from the Gabra of Northern Kenya. Human Ecology, 38, 335-350.
    • ROE, E. 1994. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice, Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press Books.
    • ROYAL SOCIETY 1983. Risk Assessment. Report of a Royal Society Study Group. London: The Royal Society.
    • ROYAL SOCIETY 1992. Risk Analysis, Perception and Management. London: Royal Society.
    • ROYAL SOCIETY 2004. Science in Society. London: The Royal Society.
    • SAFRIN, S. 2002. Treatise in Collision: The Biosafety Protocol and the World Trade Organization Agreements. Rutgers University (Newark) Legal Working Paper Series. Newark: Rutgers University.
    • SANDERSON, I. 2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80, 1-22.
    • SAVADORI, L., SAVIO, S., NICOTRA, E., RUMIATI, R., FINUCANE, M. & SLOVIC, P. 2004. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289- 1299.
    • SCHMIDT, M., TORGERSEN, H., GANGULI-MITRA, A., KELLE, A., DEPLAZES, A. & BILLERANDORNO, N. 2008. SYNBIOSAFE e-conference: online community discussion on the societal aspects of synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 2, 7-17.
    • SCHMIDT, V. A. & RADAELLI, C. M. 2004. Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics, 27, 183-210.
    • SCHNEIDER, S. H. 1992. Introduction to climate modeling. In: TRENBERTH, K. E. (ed.) Climate System Modeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • SCHNEIDER, S. H., S. SEMENOV, A. PATWARDHAN, I. BURTON, C.H.D. MAGADZA, M. OPPENHEIMER, A.B. PITTOCK, A. RAHMAN, J.B. SMITH, AND, A. S. & YAMIN, F. 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In: M.L. PARRY, O.F. CANZIANI, J.P. PALUTIKOF, AND, P. J. V. D. L. & HANSON, C. E. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Vambridge University Press.
    • SCHÖN, D. & REIN, M. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, New York, Basic Books.
    • SCOONES, I. 2002. Can Agricultural Biotechnology be Pro‐Poor? IDS Bulletin, 33, 114-119.
    • SCOONES, I., LEACH, M., SMITH, A., STAGL, S., STIRLING, A. & THOMSPON, J. 2007. Dynamic Systems and th Challenge of Sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 1. Brighton: STEPS Centre.
    • SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Text and Annexes, Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
    • SELLKE, P. & RENN, O. 2010. Risk, Society and Environmental Policy: Risk Governance in a Complex World. In: GROSS, M. & HEINRICHS, H. (eds.) Environmental Sociology. Springer Netherlands.
    • SENIOR, C. A. & MITCHELL, J. F. B. 1993. Carbon dioxide and climate: the impact of cloud paramterization. Journal of Climate, 6, 393-418.
    • SÉRALINI, G.-E., CLAIR, E., MESNAGE, R., GRESS, S., DEFARGE, N., MALATESTA, M., HENNEQUIN, D. & DE VENDÔMOIS, J. S. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 4221-4231.
    • SHACKLEY, S. & WYNNE, B. 1997. Global warming potentials: ambiguity or precision as an aid to policy/. Climate Research, 8, 89-106.
    • SHACKLEY, S., YOUNG, P., PARKINSON, S. & WYNNE, B. 1998. Uncertainty, complexity and concepts of good science in climate change modelling: Are GCMs the best tools? Climatic change, 38, 159-205.
    • SHINE, K. & HENDERSON‐SELLERS, A. 1983. Modelling climate and the nature of climate models: a review. Journal of Climatology, 3, 81-94.
    • SHIVA, V. 1997. Biopiracy: the Plunder of Nature and Knowledge, Cambridge MA, South End Press.
    • SHIVA, V. 2008. Toxic genes and toxic papers: IFPRI covering up the link between Bt Cotton and Farmers Suicides. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology Report.
    • SHRADER-FRECHETTE, K. 1995. Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk, 6, 115-126.
    • SIEGRIST, M. & CVETKOVICH, G. 2000. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk analysis, 20, 713-720.
    • SLOVIC, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk analysis, 13, 675-682.
    • SLOVIC, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689-701.
    • SLOVIC, P. 2000. The Perception of Risk, Oxford, Earthscan Publications.
    • SMITH, D. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology, Boston, Northeastern University Press.
    • SMITH, D. E. 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
    • SMITH, D. E. 2001. Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 7, 159-198.
    • SMITH, D. E. 2005. Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people, AltaMira Press.
    • SMUCKER, T. A. & WISNER, B. 2008. Changing household responses to drought in Tharaka, Kenya: vulnerability, persistence and challenge. Disasters, 32, 190-215.
    • SPIELMAN, D. J. 2007. Pro-poor agricultural biotechnology: Can the international research system deliver the goods? Food Policy, 32, 189-204.
    • STIRLING, A. 1997. Limits to the value of external costs. Energy Policy, 25, 517-540.
    • STIRLING, A. 1999a. The appraisal of sustainability: some problems and possible responses. Local Environment, 4, 111-135.
    • STIRLING, A. 1999b. Risk at a turning point? Journal of Environmental Medicine, 1, 119- 126.
    • STIRLING, A. 2003. Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In: BERKHOUT, F., LEACH, M. & SCOONES, I. (eds.) Negotiating environmental change: new perspectives from social science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • STIRLING, A. 2007. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Report, 8, 309-315.
    • STIRLING, A. 2008. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 262-294.
    • STIRLING, A. & MAYER, S. 2001. A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 529-55.
    • STIRLING, A., MAYER, S. & GENE WATCH, U. 1999. Rethinking Risk: a pilot multi-criteria mapping of a genetically modified crop in agricultural systems in the UK, Brighton, Science Policy Research Unit.
    • STIRLING, A. C. & SCOONES, I. 2009. From risk assessment to knowledge mapping: science, precaution and participation in disease ecology. Ecology and Society, 14, 14.
    • STOOKE, R. & MCKENZIE, P. J. 2009. Leisure and Work in Library and Community Programs for Very Young Children. Library Trends, 57, 657-675.
    • SUMBERG, J., THOMPSON, J. & WOODHOUSE, P. 2012. Contested agronomy: agricultural research in a changing world. In: SUMBERG, J. & THOMPSON, J. (eds.) Contested agronomy: agricultural research in a changing world. Oxon: Earthscan-Routledge.
    • SVERRISSON, Á. 2001. Translation networks, knowledge brokers and novelty construction: Pragmatic environmentalism in Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 44, 313- 327.
    • SYDNES, A. K. 2008. Overlapping regimes: The SPS Agreement and the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. In: YOUNG, O. R., CHAMBERS, W. B., KIM, J. A. & TEN HAVE, C. (eds.) Institutional Interplay: Biosafety and Trade. New York: United Nations University Press.
    • TATSUMI, K., YAMASHIKI, Y., VALMIR DA SILVA, R., TAKARA, K., MATSUOKA, Y., TAKAHASHI, K., MARUYAMA, K. & KAWAHARA, N. 2011. Estimation of potential changes in cereals production under climate change scenarios. Hydrological Processes, 25, 2715-2725.
    • THOMPSON, J., MILLSTONE, E., SCOONES, I., ELY, A., MARSHALL, F., SHAH, E., STAGL, S. & WILKINSON, J. 2007. Agri-food System Dynamics: pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty. In: STEPS CENTRE (ed.) STEPS Working Paper Series. Brighton.
    • THOMPSON, M. & WARBURTON, M. 1985. Decision making under contradictory certainties: how to save the Himalayas when you can't find out what's wrong with them. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 12, 3-34.
    • THORNTON, P., SAKA, A., SINGH, U., KUMWENDA, J., BRINK, J. & DENT, J. 1995. Application of a maize crop simulation model in the central region of Malawi. Experimental Agriculture, 31, 213-226.
    • THORNTON, P. K., JONES, P. G., ALAGARSWAMY, G. & ANDRESEN, J. 2009. Spatial variation of crop yield response to climate change in East Africa. Global Environmental Change, 19, 54-65.
    • THORNTON, P. K., JONES, P. G., ALAGARSWAMY, G., ANDRESEN, J. & HERRERO, M. 2010. Adapting to climate change: agricultural system and household impacts in East Africa. Agricultural Systems, 103, 73-82.
    • THORNTON, P. K., JONES, P. G., ERICKSEN, P. J. & CHALLINOR, A. J. 2011. Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a 4 C+ world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369, 117- 136.
    • TICKNER, J. A. 2003. Precaution, environmental science, and preventive public policy. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 13, 275-282.
    • TINGEM, M., RIVINGTON, M., BELLOCCHI, G. & COLLS, J. 2009. Crop yield model validation for Cameroon. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 96, 275-280.
    • TSCHAKERT, P. & DIETRICH, K. A. 2010. Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society, 15, 11.
    • TURNER, S. M. 2001. Texts and the institutions of municipal government: The power of texts in the public process of land development. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 7, 297-325.
    • TWYMAN, C., FRASER, E. D., STRINGER, L. C., QUINN, C., DOUGILL, A. J., RAVERA, F., CRANE, T. A. & SALLU, S. M. 2011. Climate science, development practice, and policy interactions in dryland agroecological systems. Ecology and Society, 16, 14.
    • UN/ISDR 2002. Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives, Geneva, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
    • VAN DER MEER, K. 2002. Public-private cooperation in agricultural research: examples from The Netherlands. In: BYERLEE, D. & ECHEERRIA, R. (eds.) Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization. Oxon and New York: CABI Publishing.
    • VAN DIJK, T. A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4, 249- 283.
    • VAN ZWANENBERG, P. & MILLSTONE, E. 2000. Beyond skeptical relativism: evaluating the social constructions of expert risk assessments. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 259-282.
    • VOINOV, A. & BOUSQUET, F. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25, 1268-1281.
    • WAFULA, D., KAREMBU, M., WAITHAKA, M. & BELAY, G. 2011. The RABESA Project 2004- 2011: Achievements and Future Prospects. ISAAA/PBS Report. Nairobi: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications and Program of Biosafety Systems.
    • WAKHUNGU, J. W. & WAFULA, D. 2004. Introducing Bt. cotton: Policy Lessons for Smallholder Farmers in Kenya, Nairobi, African Centre for Technology Studies.
    • WANGAI, A. W., REDINBAUGH, M. G., KINYUA, Z. M., MIANO, D. W., LELEY, P. K., KASINA, M., MAHUKU, G., SCHEETS, K. & JEFFERS, D. 2012. First report of Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus and Maize Lethal Necrosis in Kenya. Plant Disease, 96, 1582-1582.
    • WEAVER, W. 1948. Science and complexity. American Scientist, 36, 536-544.
    • WELDON, S. 2004. "Public consent" or "scientific citizenship"? What counts as public participation in population based DNA collections? In: TUTTON, R. & CORRIGAN, O. (eds.) Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.
    • WHITFIELD, S. 2013. Uncertainty, ignorance and ambiguity in crop modelling for African agricultural adaptation. Climatic Change, 120, 1-16.
    • WHITFIELD, S. & REED, M. 2011. Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: Introducing a new approach. Journal of Arid Environments, 77, 1-10.
    • WILSDON, D. & WILLIS, R. 2004. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London, Demos.
    • WOLFENBARGER, L. L. & PHIFER, P. R. 2000. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088-2093.
    • WYNNE, B. 1996. May the Sheep Safely Graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: LASH, S., SZERSZYNSKI, B. & WYNNE, B. (eds.) Risk, Environment and Modernity. London: Sage.
    • WYNNE, B. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50, 459.
    • WYNNE, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science - hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genomics, 9, 211-220.
    • WYNNE, B. & SHACKLEY, S. 1994. Environmental models: truth machines or social heuristics. The Globe, 21, 6-8.
    • YEARLEY, S. 2005. Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science, London, Sage.
    • 30s Male + 30s Female [wife]
    • 40s Male ( +neighbour)
    • 20s Male + 20s Female [wife] (+children)
    • 60s Female
    • 60s Male + 60s Female [wife]
    • 60s Female + <20 Male [son]
    • 40s Male (+ children)
    • 30s Female
    • 30s Female + 60s Female [mother] (+children)
    • 70s Male + 70s Female [wife]
    • 40s Female (+ children)
    • 30s Female (+ children)
    • 40s Male (+wife and children)
    • 40s Female + 40s Female [sister]
    • 60s Female + 30s Male [son] + 30s Female [daughter in law]
    • 50s Male
    • <20 Male
    • 30s Male + 30s Male [neighbour]
    • 50s Female + 50s Female [neighbour]
    • 50s Male + 50s Female [wife]
    • 40s Male
    • 60s Male
    • 30s Female + 60s Female [mother] (+children)
    • 40s Male
    • 60s Female + 60s Feale [neighbour]
    • 60s Female + 30s Male [son] + 30s Female [daughter in law]
    • 40s Female (+children)
    • 30s Male + 30s Female [wife] (+children)
    • 70s Male + 70s Female [wife] (+children)
    • 50s Male + <20 Male [son]
    • 6 participants (4F, 2M)
    • 14 participants (4F, 10M)
    • 12 participants (5F, 7M)
    • 30 participants (8F, 22M)
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    49
    49%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article